Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 74 of 74
  1. #61
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    I very much doubt that, unless you are counting the police arresting the perpetrators using guns. The facts are that the leading cause of death for black men under 30 is homicide and way to many of those deaths are being caused by guns. It would do far more good to disarm both sides. Actually forget disarming, is everyone here agreed that there is no reasonable purpose for someone to be able to buy a compact semi-automatic with armour piercing bullets? If not, do you at least agree we should have physiological evaluations and background checks so we don't have psychopaths and know criminals buying a f***ing automatic pistol without anyone raising an eyebrow?
    The very simple answer is this: the people illegally using weapons aren't obtaining them legally. They aren't going to Cabellas to buy 30-06 or 5.56. It's not hard to get firearms anywhere. Plenty of countries that do not allow firearm ownership have them; smuggling is impossible to stop. Ban firearms, gangs WILL get them. Chicago is proof of this. We had a handgun ban here for decades... you know how many handgun crimes were committed during that bans life? A lot.

    The ban did nothing.

    Why would it be good to disarm people who don't break the law? Your logic is horrible. "Side A uses object X for illegal purposes. Side B uses object X for legal purposes and not illegal purposes. Both sides should be disarmed to stop side A from illegally using X".

    Cars, knives, axes, chemicals of all types fit that description.


    Myself, Squatch, Onalandline go through the process of legally obtaining firearms. I have to jump through more hoops than anyone here living in IL (unless someone from CA is here).

    I not only have to have a background check done every time I purchase a firearm, I need to obtain a license from the state of IL every 10 years to even have the chance to go through that background check.

    I get checked (and IL takes 60 days to get my license to me, when the law says 30) when I apply for the license.
    I get checked every time I buy.

    I've never misused my weapons. I've never dreamed of misusing them. So tell me, why must I pay for the crimes of others? I follow the laws, more than most people.
    Witty puns...

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    The very simple answer is this: the people illegally using weapons aren't obtaining them legally. They aren't going to Cabellas to buy 30-06 or 5.56. It's not hard to get firearms anywhere. Plenty of countries that do not allow firearm ownership have them; smuggling is impossible to stop. Ban firearms, gangs WILL get them. Chicago is proof of this. We had a handgun ban here for decades... you know how many handgun crimes were committed during that bans life? A lot.

    The ban did nothing.
    The goal of a handgun ban is not a long term one, nor should it be implemented immediately, it should be a gradual process and in fact I can think of numerous alternative strategies that could be even more effective, why don't I propose a few strategies and see if there are any that could work without infringing the freedoms you hold dear.

    1. We should implement a ban on ammunition without a reasonable purpose, so you cannot buy armour piercing, tracer, or other rounds only good for killing people, coupled with a ban on assault weapons, this means that weapons used for hunting and personal defence would not be effected. You could couple this with special permits allowing for the use of these things on designated (and closely monitored) firing ranges, so that anyone who want practice with these things could be afforded the opportunity (Just a possibility, I don't think the permits thing is needed).

    2. Forget gun control and try bullet control. Have every round of ammunition have a microscopic serial number which cannot be removed without ruining the bullet. Every person who purchases ammunition will require photo ID and will be linked to the bullets they buy. You can then tie an individual directly to the ammunition they own. To encourage people to keep bullets in a secure location, you could pass laws allowing negligence charges to be used against anyone whose ammunition is used in a crime (with certain safeguards in place of course). Couple that with a buyback program for standard ammunition, so that law abiding citizens can trade their old ammunition for new or get the old stuff engraved. That would allow crimes to be traced without infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners.

    3. A simple requirement for gun storage to prevent theft when a person is not in their house, as well as a database of the markings left on bullets for all new and as many old guns as possible, so if combined with the marked bullets we can trace any shot to the owner and get criminals off the street.


    Are any of those objectionable to you (as long term strategies, not necessarily as an immediately practical one)?

  3. #63
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    1. We should implement a ban on ammunition without a reasonable purpose, so you cannot buy armour piercing, tracer, or other rounds only good for killing people, coupled with a ban on assault weapons, this means that weapons used for hunting and personal defence would not be effected. You could couple this with special permits allowing for the use of these things on designated (and closely monitored) firing ranges, so that anyone who want practice with these things could be afforded the opportunity (Just a possibility, I don't think the permits thing is needed).
    Who defines "reasonable" purpose? Ammo and weapons designed for killing people are the key to the freedom that we hold dear. In case you hadn't noticed that was the point of having a home defense weapon, to kill an attacker. It also would seem odd that we are maintaining a militia or armed citizenry that doesn't have the capacity to kill armed soldiers.

    Quote Originally Posted by SGTPeppers
    2. Forget gun control and try bullet control. Have every round of ammunition have a microscopic serial number which cannot be removed without ruining the bullet. Every person who purchases ammunition will require photo ID and will be linked to the bullets they buy. You can then tie an individual directly to the ammunition they own. To encourage people to keep bullets in a secure location, you could pass laws allowing negligence charges to be used against anyone whose ammunition is used in a crime (with certain safeguards in place of course). Couple that with a buyback program for standard ammunition, so that law abiding citizens can trade their old ammunition for new or get the old stuff engraved. That would allow crimes to be traced without infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners.
    This defeats the purpose as well. The second amendment was specifically formulated to protect the citizenry from an overbearing government. Any restriction that would allow them to round up and confiscate our ability to resist fails that right.

    Quote Originally Posted by SGTPeppers
    3. A simple requirement for gun storage to prevent theft when a person is not in their house, as well as a database of the markings left on bullets for all new and as many old guns as possible, so if combined with the marked bullets we can trace any shot to the owner and get criminals off the street.
    What gives you the right to interfere in how I personally store my firearm? Why don't we have the same restrictions on vehicles then? Pain medications? Pools (far, far deadlier than guns)?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    The goal of a handgun ban is not a long term one, nor should it be implemented immediately, it should be a gradual process and in fact I can think of numerous alternative strategies that could be even more effective, why don't I propose a few strategies and see if there are any that could work without infringing the freedoms you hold dear.
    Gradual, Why? What good will gradual do? Help the gun control crowd "ease" me into taking away my rights?

    I am done trying to argue constitutionality with people; as all of the challenges posed to the anti's here have been ignored (not directed at you. I haven't challenged anything you've said formally), and I wont yell at the same wall 3 times. So lets try a new approach.

    Lets just focus on the effectiveness of a ban on firearms be it on the firearm itself, OR the ammunition.

    1. We should implement a ban on ammunition without a reasonable purpose, so you cannot buy armour piercing, tracer, or other rounds only good for killing people, coupled with a ban on assault weapons, this means that weapons used for hunting and personal defence would not be effected. You could couple this with special permits allowing for the use of these things on designated (and closely monitored) firing ranges, so that anyone who want practice with these things could be afforded the opportunity (Just a possibility, I don't think the permits thing is needed).
    First I will say this, every firearm, small and large, every bullet, small or large is designed to kill. Animal or man, weapons are designed to kill. They are not always used to kill; some of us prepare to use them in self defense hoping we never have to. Some of us simply enjoy shooting targets; some of us like collecting and may never shoot our weapons.

    Every assault weapons ban I know of restricts weapons commonly used in sport, competition, and self defense. There effectiveness is also... null and void. California, Chicago, and I believe New Jersey all have bans on "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines.

    Chicago, despite its VERY heavy gun regulations is still a very dangerous area. Cook County's assault weapons ban has done nothing. Harvey, IL, Calumet City, Calumet Park, Robins. I am not speaking from a lack of experience either. I've worked in those areas on a daily basis for about a year. I've seen gun violence, I've seen robberies, and was fortunate never to be shot or robbed. I've seen the "gun free" areas. Seriously, think of all the bans and laws. Marijuana, Prohibition in the 1920's, did this stop the trafficking problem? Despite the fact that marijuana is illegal plenty of people regularly use it. Liquor still found it's way into America and help boost criminals income.

    Are you seeing a trend here? Following the law, in many practical ways, is a VOLUNTARY act. There is no magic shield that forces me to stop at red lights. I do it because I follow the law.

    So tell me this. If a man is willing to drive by a home and empty a magazine into a crowd of innocent people... why the flying f&*k do you think saying "nope. It's illegal to own that." is going to stop him? Say it's illegal all you like, Johnny Law Breaker is going to get his hands on an AK47, and not a semiautomatic one.

    You know what gun control is? It's a nice way for politicians to fake dealing with the crime problem. High crime in your city? Make it illegal to own handguns. Doesn't do anything... but it makes you "feel" good. Want to restrict gun ownership? Have people register for a license to buy a firearm; then make it really difficult for those people to get their license; violating your own laws in the process. It doesn't stop the gangs from getting illegally imported AK's; but hey... sure makes you feel warm inside.

    Gun control doesn't work, for the same reasons prohibition didn't work; or any bans. The people who want to break the law WILL break the law. You think a gang member cares what the Cook County Assault Weapons ban says? Chances are he doesn't even know it exists.

    But Cook County would LOVE to put plenty of law abiding gun owners behind bars for owning a Ruger 10/22 target rifle. Something that fires a bullet not much bigger than a pellet.

    2. Forget gun control and try bullet control. Have every round of ammunition have a microscopic serial number which cannot be removed without ruining the bullet. Every person who purchases ammunition will require photo ID and will be linked to the bullets they buy. You can then tie an individual directly to the ammunition they own. To encourage people to keep bullets in a secure location, you could pass laws allowing negligence charges to be used against anyone whose ammunition is used in a crime (with certain safeguards in place of course). Couple that with a buyback program for standard ammunition, so that law abiding citizens can trade their old ammunition for new or get the old stuff engraved. That would allow crimes to be traced without infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners.
    Seriously? You want them to track people THAT much? No way. I wouldn't do that with anything. You feel THAT confident in the government to NOT misuse that information?

    Perhaps we should serialize every box cutter too... After all it helped hijack a few planes.

    Not infringing? And what if one day they decide to... oh I don't know... round up a bunch of Jews and put them in camps? Or maybe remove a trial by jury? Searches without a warrant? A disarmed people are easy to bully around.

    I want my politicians to be afraid of the voting public. When people are allowed power, they become dangerous. These people can put you to death; a little healthy suspicion on both sides keep things in checks.

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary
    Federalist 51, James Madison.

    WE are the external control. The government has the military to back them up; all we have without the threat of overthrowing them is voting. That's not enough. If they get guns, we get guns. I wouldn't go into the ring with a guy who had a knife unless I got one too.

    The American system government is entirely based on a little bit of distrust and suspicion.

    I don't like the fact that every little device today tracks everything you do. American Airlines Ap doesn't need to know what phone calls I make, have access to my phone book, or my text messages, and neither does Google.

    You trust these people, the people who have bankrupted this country; THAT much? You're mad sir; utterly mad.

    3. A simple requirement for gun storage to prevent theft when a person is not in their house, as well as a database of the markings left on bullets for all new and as many old guns as possible, so if combined with the marked bullets we can trace any shot to the owner and get criminals off the street.
    Nope. I used to think this way too. I understand your concerns, but you're willing to sacrifice A LOT of control and freedom in return for safety. Those willing to trade their freedoms for security deserve neither freedom or safety. I will gladly take the risks of living in a free society over the risks of the government controlling every aspect of my life.

    Are any of those objectionable to you (as long term strategies, not necessarily as an immediately practical one)?
    Very much so.

    Listen. I get where you are coming from. But the amount of control you are willing to give the government scares me. I pay my taxes, and I follow the law. I am not the one killing children on the street corner.

    Track and punish the people who break the law; not me. Gun control laws are half assed attempts to make politicians and the gun control crowd feel like they've done something. It wont stop crime; it hasn't; it never will.

    Men will continue to kill, rape, and steal. I should be entitled to defend myself with the best technology available to me. .45ACP pistol, 870 shotgun, or an AR15 rifle.

    Short of heavy explosives and WMD's I don't see a problem with a man walking down the street with a shotgun. I'd find it unnecessary for daily travel, but it wouldn't scare me.

    I'd be willing to talk about restrictions on carrying for practical purposes, over penetration for example, but gun control? No.

    I got caught up and forget to cover ammo: there are some states that will not allow civilians to own hollow point ammo. Which is odd; I'd rather shoot a man with that. The chances of going my target and killing someone who isn't a target are much better.

    AP is restricted in a few states; and honestly it's rarely used in crime. It's too expensive and AP ammo is overkill. Honestly, a 30-06 will penetrate all soft body armor and most hard body armor, without an AP tip.

    Most criminals use regular ammunition; its cheaper and plentiful. I only know of a few manufacturers that make steel tipped ammo and it's hard to come by.
    Last edited by DevilPup John; April 12th, 2012 at 07:43 AM. Reason: Spelling n such
    Witty puns...

  5. #65
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    I've seen the "gun free" areas.
    Lets take a second to remember where the worst gun violence in recent US history has occurred. Places like Columbine, FT. Hood and Virginia Tech were gun prohibition zones, and yet...

    Interesting that you don't see a lot of mass shootings at the NRA headquarters.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    From what I've seen and read, at worst gun laws (both gun control and deregulation) have no impact on crime.

    That means it doesn't go up or down.

    What it does do is give someone the opportunity to defend themselves against thugs.

    So my ownership hasn't caused crime to go up, nor as it caused it to go down. But if someone breaks into my house I am prepared to use lethal force to defend myself and my family.

    I trust most people with firearms. Every first timer I have ever taken shooting has always been cautious and asked questions when unsure. I have spent a lot of time around weapons; I've built my own from parts. I give them the proper respect they deserve as tools and weapons. They are not toys.

    However as many of us have been arguing; this isn't merely a matter of protecting ourselves from thugs; but from the government.

    A rifle in the wrong hands can hurt someone. A rifle in the right hands can save a life; or lives. I am all for removing the rights of those that violate the laws; as long as it's done properly.

    But I'd never disarm a man, nor would I ever support disarming a man who pays his taxes, puts in his time at work, and has proven to be a good citizen. I also support restoring the rights of those who have worked hard to pay their debt to society.

    The government has enough power and authority; if anything they have too much.

    I am a firm believer that everyone should fire a weapon once in their life. Sooner or later chances are you will come across one. It would be better if you understood it's function.
    Witty puns...

  7. #67
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnAdams View Post
    This whole country is completely ****ed up!!!!! We put more focus on aquiring success, rather than value. We put more focus on self preservation, but still destroy ourselves morally. We fight, about everything, most of the time it is violent, rarely is it non-violent.

    I will never carry a gun or even touch a gun for that matter. If the government ever decides it wants to force me, then they can go **** themselves. If anyone else forces me too, then they can go **** themselves.

    My eternal soul is far more important to me than my physical body. I am only here for a short amount of time and I intend of making the best of it. I would rather die with dignity than live as a worthless coward who is willing to murder for their own well being.

    (edited).
    Grow up dude. Seriously. You are either a really dedicated troll or a child. Either way, grow up. You are why we need the negative rep system back. People like you who can't respond to a formal challenge, or retract your statement are the problem with this site.
    Last edited by Sigfried; April 12th, 2012 at 08:25 PM.
    Witty puns...

  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Who defines "reasonable" purpose? Ammo and weapons designed for killing people are the key to the freedom that we hold dear. In case you hadn't noticed that was the point of having a home defense weapon, to kill an attacker. It also would seem odd that we are maintaining a militia or armed citizenry that doesn't have the capacity to kill armed soldiers.
    You can kill an attacker with a regular bullet, the only reason you need armour piecing is if you plan on shooting a person wearing something like Kevlar. I can only think of 1 group who would consistently be wearing that type of armour, is found in every city and would come into contact with people who want to shoot them...hmmmmmm, what were they called? Oh yes, we call them police officers.

    This defeats the purpose as well. The second amendment was specifically formulated to protect the citizenry from an overbearing government. Any restriction that would allow them to round up and confiscate our ability to resist fails that right.
    How does having serial numbers on your bullets let the government disarm you?

    What gives you the right to interfere in how I personally store my firearm? Why don't we have the same restrictions on vehicles then? Pain medications? Pools (far, far deadlier than guns)?
    The fact society has an interest in your gun not being stolen and used in a crime? Is that good enough reason? Perhaps because we don't want someone getting shot by accident? The list goes on.

    ---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    First I will say this, every firearm, small and large, every bullet, small or large is designed to kill. Animal or man, weapons are designed to kill. They are not always used to kill; some of us prepare to use them in self defense hoping we never have to. Some of us simply enjoy shooting targets; some of us like collecting and may never shoot our weapons.
    All those uses are fine by me, but what are the arguments against waiting periods and precautionary measures if they are for pleasure or precaution, why are waiting periods opposed by the gun lobby

    Gun control doesn't work, for the same reasons prohibition didn't work; or any bans. The people who want to break the law WILL break the law. You think a gang member cares what the Cook County Assault Weapons ban says? Chances are he doesn't even know it exists.
    Would you not agree that he might think twice about using that gun if he knows every bullet fired can be traced back to his purchase?

    Seriously? You want them to track people THAT much? No way. I wouldn't do that with anything. You feel THAT confident in the government to NOT misuse that information?
    How would the gov't be tracking you? They would be able to trace a bullet back to you, but we can also trace people using DNA or fingerprints if they have a criminal record, with no infringement until they break the law.

  9. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPER
    You can kill an attacker with a regular bullet, the only reason you need armour piecing is if you plan on shooting a person wearing something like Kevlar. I can only think of 1 group who would consistently be wearing that type of armour, is found in every city and would come into contact with people who want to shoot them...hmmmmmm, what were they called? Oh yes, we call them police officers.
    And what are we to do when the police are the ones violating our rights?
    When the gov fears the people.. there is liberty.
    When the people fear the gov, there is tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPERS
    The fact society has an interest in your gun not being stolen and used in a crime? Is that good enough reason? Perhaps because we don't want someone getting shot by accident? The list goes on.
    Interest doesn't give them the right to it. In the end it is my property and the gov shouldn't have a say in how I own it.


    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPER
    All those uses are fine by me, but what are the arguments against waiting periods and precautionary measures if they are for pleasure or precaution, why are waiting periods opposed by the gun lobby
    Because they are useless and only designed to discourage people from buying a gun at all. IE forget impulse buying... buy your car on impulse not a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPER
    Would you not agree that he might think twice about using that gun if he knows every bullet fired can be traced back to his purchase?
    Can you imagine the paper work required to report a box of 50 bullets stolen? The practical application of this idea makes it a bad idea because it wouldn't work in practice.
    Stores can barely keep accurate inventory on large items.. much less small ones... and I would bet that it would be near impossible to make the bullets consecutive numbers in the same box.
    Meaning, if you lost 1 bullet out of your box (say stolen by a person who wanted to kill someone and frame you for it) it would be impossible to know what # it was. ... again.. bad Idea.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And what are we to do when the police are the ones violating our rights?
    When the gov fears the people.. there is liberty.
    When the people fear the gov, there is tyranny.
    This is recurring theme among right wingers, but I don't see how a government which is answerable to the people can subjugate it. Unless the entirety of the military were to decide to ignore the constitution the government has no power to subjugate the people. I have read the entirety of the US constitution and it is beautifully constructed to avoid and prevent tyranny. The ideas date back to the likes of Montesquieu, Locke, and Hobbes these people were not fools, there ideas have survived centuries. The only circumstance which has ever involved the government being forced to act against its own citizens was when a segment of the country decided that democracy was going against them because they were outnumbered and decided to secede. Those actions amount to treason, against their country and the values it stood for. I think we will agree that treason against as process because the odds are not in your favour is a circumstance in which the gov't can act.

    Interest doesn't give them the right to it. In the end it is my property and the gov shouldn't have a say in how I own it.
    The gov't can mandate that your car has seat belts, they require you to have insurance if you drive it, is that a violation of your rights?

    Because they are useless and only designed to discourage people from buying a gun at all. IE forget impulse buying... buy your car on impulse not a gun.
    Personally, I think it might be a good idea not to let an angry husband buy a gun quickly enough to shoot his wife before he calms down, the precaution seems reasonable and I cannot think of a reason someone would have to have a gun within 2 days and the fact is is a desperate need of a firearm within a couple days should be a red flag in and of itself.

    Can you imagine the paper work required to report a box of 50 bullets stolen? The practical application of this idea makes it a bad idea because it wouldn't work in practice.
    Stores can barely keep accurate inventory on large items.. much less small ones... and I would bet that it would be near impossible to make the bullets consecutive numbers in the same box.
    Meaning, if you lost 1 bullet out of your box (say stolen by a person who wanted to kill someone and frame you for it) it would be impossible to know what # it was. ... again.. bad Idea.
    It would encourage people to store ammunition in a secure place. As for the other concerns, I think technology might be able to find a way by this point to figure that out.

  11. #71
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers
    This is recurring theme among right wingers, but I don't see how a government which is answerable to the people can subjugate it. Unless the entirety of the military were to decide to ignore the constitution the government has no power to subjugate the people. I have read the entirety of the US constitution and it is beautifully constructed to avoid and prevent tyranny. The ideas date back to the likes of Montesquieu, Locke, and Hobbes these people were not fools, there ideas have survived centuries.
    It is beautifully constructed to prevent these things, but it is also subject to erosion by neglect. Tyranny doesn't always happen rapidly, but can through slow and gradual means.

    For instance, the government using the commerce clause to force individual actions. It started when FDR's administration said a subsistence farmer could not grow wheat on his own farm for his own uses. They did so using the commerce clause and it was upheld in a court that FDR threatened to pack with people loyal to him if they didn't do his will.

    So to pretend that just because we have this wonderful constitution that our freedom is safe is simply ignorant.

    The only circumstance which has ever involved the government being forced to act against its own citizens was when a segment of the country decided that democracy was going against them because they were outnumbered and decided to secede. Those actions amount to treason, against their country and the values it stood for. I think we will agree that treason against as process because the odds are not in your favour is a circumstance in which the gov't can act.
    There have been a lot more instances, though far more local, than just the Civil War.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  12. #72
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    All those uses are fine by me, but what are the arguments against waiting periods and precautionary measures if they are for pleasure or precaution, why are waiting periods opposed by the gun lobby
    In reality I don't really care. Where the hell did I talk about wait times? Sounds like a steamy hot pile of red herring to me.

    Would you not agree that he might think twice about using that gun if he knows every bullet fired can be traced back to his purchase?
    No. I think it's been well proven that crime will continue with or without restriction. Plus... the very simple and obvious flaw. Ready? He didn't buy that ammo legally. So... yeah. You really think Johnny Lawbreaker goes to Cabela's and buy boxes of ammo, on camera, hands over a drivers license, to use in illegal activities?

    Johnny Everyman goes there and legally obtains his stuff... to guess what? Use legally. The bad guy is going to get his stuff using illegal means.

    I have a better question though. Let's expand on your idea; because it is interesting. Where on the bullet would you put this serial number? Forget every challenge for now and tell me where would you put it?

    Explain to me this program in detail; and how it would help in cases of someone stealing rounds.

    How would the gov't be tracking you? They would be able to trace a bullet back to you, but we can also trace people using DNA or fingerprints if they have a criminal record, with no infringement until they break the law.
    Because every bullet would now be registered in YOUR name.

    If it's microscopic how am I to know WHAT bullet was stolen; or record those numbers? And now; people like me with a thousand rounds of ammo need to track every bullet? If it get's stolen that bullet is registered in my name. I don't store my ammo neatly in boxes. It's clipped, put in a magazine, or stored loosely with bullets of the same caliber. Hell, I have rounds from the 1960's stored with 70's rounds.

    If someone breaks in and steals 200 rounds how am I to know which is which?

    I don't inventory every shot I take at the range, and I wont. Too much work.

    The only inventory I keep is how much ammo I have, what caliber, and what make.

    Sounds like a lot of work to put on people who legally own firearms and follow all the laws.

    You're not getting at the problem; you're just coming up with things that make you feel safer.

    That round is stolen... how the hell is having a serial number on there going to help you identify the one who committed the crime?

    Someone steals one round from my stock. They use it. How is that serial number going to help you ID the person who stole it? It won't.
    Witty puns...

  13. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnAdams View Post
    This whole country is completely ****ed up!!!!! We put more focus on aquiring success, rather than value. We put more focus on self preservation, but still destroy ourselves morally. We fight, about everything, most of the time it is violent, rarely is it non-violent.

    I will never carry a gun or even touch a gun for that matter. If the government ever decides it wants to force me, then they can go **** themselves.

    My eternal soul is far more important to me than my physical body. I am only here for a short amount of time and I intend of making the best of it. I would rather die with dignity than live as a worthless coward who is willing to murder for their own well being.
    Don't worry, you will never be forced to carry a gun, unless you are drafted into the military. I don't know if you are too old for that or not.

    Also, if you had access to a gun, and had to use it in self-defense, would you?
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  14. #74
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPER
    The only circumstance which has ever involved the government being forced to act against its own citizens was when a segment of the country decided that democracy was going against them because they were outnumbered and decided to secede. Those actions amount to treason, against their country and the values it stood for. I think we will agree that treason against as process because the odds are not in your favour is a circumstance in which the gov't can act.
    The gov is currently acting against it's citizens in every aspect.
    The tax code is a weapon that makes us all criminals and subject to the gov taking all of our property before we can even mount a defense.
    The regulatory code makes everyone a criminal threatening you with jail and fines of every kind.
    The local Gov are eager to confiscate the guns of citizens as soon as a crisis occurs (see great New Orleans gun grab).

    It is not treason to reject unlawful use of force by the gov. .. which it is doing through uncons excess. In the case of the New Orleans gun grab.. what more do you want to see before you accept that our gov is willing to completely ignore the citizens const rights in order to do what it wants. (You will note that the gov was sued and lost for confiscating guns.. so it was absolutely illegal what they did) But consider.. .what if the citizens refused by force to give their guns up? What if an armed police officer entering a locked home was shot and killed, only to have it later ruled justified killing because the police officer had no right to invade an innocent civilians home. Done on a large enough scale, you would have called that "insurrection" and "treason"... but the traitors would really be the gov.


    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPER
    The gov't can mandate that your car has seat belts, they require you to have insurance if you drive it, is that a violation of your rights?
    Do I have a right to a car? (no)


    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPER
    Personally, I think it might be a good idea not to let an angry husband buy a gun quickly enough to shoot his wife before he calms down, the precaution seems reasonable and I cannot think of a reason someone would have to have a gun within 2 days and the fact is is a desperate need of a firearm within a couple days should be a red flag in and of itself.
    I don't think that happens enough to be a valid concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by PEPPER
    It would encourage people to store ammunition in a secure place. As for the other concerns, I think technology might be able to find a way by this point to figure that out.
    clearly secure storage is important, but things do get stolen, and bullets are not exactly a high priority or expensive item. If i lost a bullet now, I would have almost no concern, and I shouldn't.
    But, if I lost one with direct connection to me, then all of a sudden I am under threat of prosecution.. needlessly.

    As for technology, maybe.. maybe not. I would rather see the solution before we create a massive problem needlessly
    and it would be a massive problem.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Men should look and act masculine, women should look and act feminine!!!
    By TheSparrow in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: August 1st, 2012, 08:30 AM
  2. Open Carry
    By invictus33 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 18th, 2008, 01:08 PM
  3. How many credit cards do you carry?
    By Zenstone in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 11th, 2006, 02:10 AM
  4. Concealed carry, vigilantism?
    By CC in forum General Debate
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 16th, 2005, 09:17 AM
  5. Universal National Service Act of 2003
    By KneeLess in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2004, 04:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •